Boat sunk, by Stag Party?

[frahkn]

9 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

No.

 

If it hasn't got a use now then we get rid of it both at home and on the boat.

 

Can't be dealing with clutter.

That has to be incorrect, as I  think, on reflection' you will agree.

[frahkn]

5 hours ago, Athy said:

How were readers to know that they should single out that one word for special attention?

To me "can't" is the key word in your post, though I wonder whether you meant "won't". People can wear their nice glasses or their nasty glasses as they choose, and that choice can allow them to see things differently. Is there something in particular that annoys you about posts in the thread?

As you point out (in the previous sentence) readers will not know which word to single out.

 

Perhaps that's why they read the piece as a whole, in which case only the odd individual would think "can't" carried the burden of meaning in the post.

 

Least you think I am suggesting that you are an odd individual, I should make it clear that the response quoted does not lead me to such a conclusion.

[Athy]

7 hours ago, frahkn said:

 

 

Least you think I am suggesting that you are an odd individual, I should make it clear that the response quoted does not lead me to such a conclusion.

Of course I'm an odd individual. I own a canal boat. Scarcely normal behaviour, is it?

 

I did find AMM's post a little curmudgeonly. To me the thread has included a wide range of opinions, expressed with varying degrees of fervour, and many of which display a considerable degree of humanity. So I'm unsure what he finds lacking. Perhaps more sympathy for well-oiled stag parties?

[TheBiscuits]

8 hours ago, frahkn said:

That has to be incorrect, as I  think, on reflection' you will agree.

For example, we are in a marina so the anchor is not needed now, and the engine is not running so all this diesel is unnecessary. 

[WotEver]

On 26/09/2018 at 18:46, Athy said:

But surely the aborigines were indigenous, whereas "settlers" by definition settle there having arrived from somewhere else?

Well, the ‘indigenous’ population didn’t form from nothing. They settled there some tens of thousands of years ago, having migrated (probably) from Asia. 

 

Any poplulation anywhere outside Africa are non-indigenous if you go back far enough. 

[Alan de Enfield]

4 hours ago, WotEver said:

Well, the ‘indigenous’ population didn’t form from nothing. They settled there some tens of thousands of years ago, having migrated (probably) from Asia. 

 

Any poplulation anywhere outside Africa are non-indigenous if you go back far enough. 

I'm sure I remember seeing a TV programme recently where they have discovered humanoid remains in 'Southern Europe' (Turkey I think) that pre-date the African ones.

[Sea Dog]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I'm sure I remember seeing a TV programme recently where they have discovered humanoid remains in 'Southern Europe' (Turkey I think) that pre-date the African ones.

That was mum and dad having a final holiday as a couple before going home to start a family back in Africa. 

 

[system 4-50]

4 hours ago, Sea Dog said:

That was mum and dad having a final holiday as a couple before going home to start a family back in Africa. 

 

Did they share an apple?

[AMModels]

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I'm sure I remember seeing a TV programme recently where they have discovered humanoid remains in 'Southern Europe' (Turkey I think) that pre-date the African ones.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-oldest-known-human-fossils-have-been-found-in-an-unusual-place/529452/

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, AMModels said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-oldest-known-human-fossils-have-been-found-in-an-unusual-place/529452/

Thank you.

They were mentioned but I feel sure that Turkey (ish) was mentioned, maybe they crossed over from North Africa.

Maybe I'm dreaming.

[frahkn]

16 hours ago, Athy said:

Of course I'm an odd individual. 

 

Oh absolutely, without doubt, I am certain of it.

 

But not as a result of the response which I quoted.

[doratheexplorer]

On 28/09/2018 at 11:49, gunsmoke said:

 

If you want to understand the reasons for the ruination of the itinerant life on the waterways over the past 20 years or so you should understand what is meant by New Age Traveller, New Traveller, Traveller and Bargee Traveller.  Most people have no idea.  Most people do no research, do more drinking than thinking and make ill informed comments 'off the top of their heads'.

Not directed at you just using your comment as an example.

I agree with you. There is a tendency, by some, to exaggerate a person's 'vulnerability' to create another 'victim'.  NBTA do this all the time.  It doesn't help genuine cases where sympathy and assistance are more deserved and more appropriate.
There are/have been several claims for money or situations that are largely the fault of the person concerned and , in some cases, obviously false.

Much about being a 'traveller' is about attitude and is exhibited in a total lack of consideration for others and a misplaced sense of superiority over the 'settled community'.  Much the same as the 'punk' attitude. 

If you live on a boat and are itinerant you are legally classed as a 'traveller'.  That is not helpful  and creates difficulties when dealing with 'the authorities'.  It helps CRT if they bring a case against you if they claim you are a traveller.

It is more difficult to sign on at a doctor's as a temporary patient and even as a full time patient if you have no address. Court cases have little chance of success and lessen the credibility of a person defending a 'traveller' case or that of a 'Freeman of the Land' i.e. 'traveller'.    The only solicitors willing to take on such cases are the Community Law Partnership in Birmingham who are the 'gypsy travellers' solicitors and help them occupy sites over Bank holiday weekends when Council offices are closed.    Their aim, and that of NBTA, is to secure more rights for travellers regardless of any concerns over anti social behaviour or organised criminality.  What the NBTA do to help 'boaters' is more about furthering the interests of travellers and is not helpful to the majority of 'boaters'; rather like the 'helpfulness' of a bunch of travellers rolling up to join in a valid protest that is nothing to do with them.

 

We all suffer as a result of this pointless 'victim' subculture as also other psychotic belief systems and subcultures.

 

I welcome intelligent, informative responses. 
  

 

   

Which legislation defines itinerant boaters as travellers?  Genuine question.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, doratheexplorer said:

Which legislation defines itinerant boaters as travellers?  Genuine question.

Also : The "Education Act 1996 Section 7"

 

...............the term ‘Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families’ means:
a) 
i. Gypsies inc. Romanies, Romanichals, Welsh Gypsies/Kaale, Scottish Gypsies/Travellers;
ii. Irish Travellers, Minceir;
iii. Roma from Eastern and Central Europe;
iv. Showmen (Fairground people);
v. Circus people;
vi. Boat Travellers/Bargees;
vii. New Travellers or New Age Travellers; and

b)

the parent/carer is engaged in a trade or business of such a nature that requires them to • travel from place to place.

[doratheexplorer]

34 minutes ago, gunsmoke said:

Housing Act 2004.  s225
Boaters are Travellers
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has given its opinion that ‘bargee travellers’ are covered by Section 225 of the Housing Act 2004 which defines who is a traveller.

The definition is needed because local authorities are required to assess the needs of travellers in their jurisdiction. The crucial part when deciding who is a traveller is the element of nomadism. This means that local authorities have a statutory obligation to investigate travellers’ needs and this should lead to provision of transit moorings like transit pitches for travellers who live in caravans.
It should be possible to use this ruling to argue that local authorities should be providing, or working with BW to ensure the adequate provision of 14-day moorings – the bargee traveller’s equivalent of a transit site – rather than acting with BW on local mooring strategy groups to reduce the amount of 14-day mooring space.

Housing Act 2004.  s225
 

Being treated as such by 'authorities' when you are not/do not consider yourself a 'traveller is 'unhelpful', to say the least.

 

This was decided/ruled in 2010.

 

 

 

This legislation has been superseeded by the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and the reference to travellers has been removed.

[doratheexplorer]

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Also : The "Education Act 1996 Section 7"

 

...............the term ‘Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families’ means:
a) 
i. Gypsies inc. Romanies, Romanichals, Welsh Gypsies/Kaale, Scottish Gypsies/Travellers;
ii. Irish Travellers, Minceir;
iii. Roma from Eastern and Central Europe;
iv. Showmen (Fairground people);
v. Circus people;
vi. Boat Travellers/Bargees;
vii. New Travellers or New Age Travellers; and

b)

the parent/carer is engaged in a trade or business of such a nature that requires them to • travel from place to place.

I think this may have been superceeded too.

 

I'm not sure it's as simple as Gunsmoke makes out.  Different pieces of legislation define differently.  In some cases the legislation only considers boats travellers where their travelling is business related.  In other cases a Traveller (capital T) would need to self-identify as belonging to a Traveller community which most liveaboards these days do not.  Certainly the Equalities Act 2010 makes things very clear in that only Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are protected.

 

In any case, the Daily Mail reading members of the forum need not panic just yet.

[NigelMoore]

27 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

This legislation has been superseeded by the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and the reference to travellers has been removed.

 

Well sections 225 & 226 were omitted following the 2016 Act. Also, section 225 cited did not specifically define itinerant boaters as travellers; the DCLG letter referred to asserted only that the term ‘traveller’ was capable of being interpreted widely enough to include itinerant boaters.

 

Replacing the Housing Act 2004’s sections on accommodation needs, the Housing and Planning Act 2016 in s.124 for the first time explicitly mandated a duty for local housing authorities to consider – additionally to caravan sites - the need for providing moorings for ‘houseboats’ – defined as “a boat or similar structure designed or adapted for use as a place to live”. I don’t see in such a definition anything requiring classification as itinerant – nor does the replacement section differentiate between holiday users and “gypsies or travellers” respecting any duty re: caravan sites.

 

DCLG guidance for local authorities respecting caravans and houseboats on the other hand, published March 2016 a couple of months prior to the new Act, did aim the requirement to assess need at particular groups – “This guidance is concerned with all those who have a need to live in a caravan or houseboat whatever their race or origin. It includes, but is not restricted to, bargees, Romany Gypsies, Irish and Scottish Travellers, new-age travellers and travelling show people.”

 

It contains no definition of ‘bargees’, but does not constitute legislation in any event.

[doratheexplorer]

40 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Also : The "Education Act 1996 Section 7"

 

...............the term ‘Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families’ means:
a) 
i. Gypsies inc. Romanies, Romanichals, Welsh Gypsies/Kaale, Scottish Gypsies/Travellers;
ii. Irish Travellers, Minceir;
iii. Roma from Eastern and Central Europe;
iv. Showmen (Fairground people);
v. Circus people;
vi. Boat Travellers/Bargees;
vii. New Travellers or New Age Travellers; and

b)

the parent/carer is engaged in a trade or business of such a nature that requires them to • travel from place to place.

I've been trying to find this passage in the act but it's not there.  Where did you get this from?

[MtB]

24 minutes ago, gunsmoke said:

Back in the nineties you were considered to be a New Age Traveller

 

Whereas nowadays those same boaters are considered to be Old Age Travellers.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

55 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I've been trying to find this passage in the act but it's not there.  Where did you get this from?

A Government Booklet Issued to schools and giving guidance to (quote) :

 

"Parents and carers who are Gypsy, Roma or Traveller; all primary, secondary and special schools; LA Attendance Leaders."

[Chewbacka]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

A Government Booklet Issued to schools and giving guidance to (quote) :

 

"Parents and carers who are Gypsy, Roma or Traveller; all primary, secondary and special schools; LA Attendance Leaders."

Maybe this???

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/2533/7/banda_att_grt_fly_0089108_Redacted.pdf

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, gunsmoke said:

The majority of boaters are not travellers and do not want to be considered to be travellers. 

Then there are some boaters who aren't travellers but want to be considered travellers.

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by Jerra

[doratheexplorer]

53 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

A Government Booklet Issued to schools and giving guidance to (quote) :

 

"Parents and carers who are Gypsy, Roma or Traveller; all primary, secondary and special schools; LA Attendance Leaders."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/section/7

[mrsmelly]

1 hour ago, gunsmoke said:

 

Interesting stuff that indicates the confusion around the situation of being a 'liveaboard' without a home mooring.   The confusion extends to all those authorities you may have to deal with.    Back in the nineties you were considered to be a New Age Traveller if you lived on a boat and were of ' no fixed address'.    There was a multi agency purge against travellers in 1992.   I claimed jobseekers allowance between jobs and the Northampton office advised me to go to a different area as there was a 'purge' in that area and they recognised that I was not a traveller. 

The existence of 'travellers' has adversely affected boaters, and the enforcement against boaters, from then onwards.  

 

The majority of boaters are not travellers and do not want to be considered to be travellers. 

I think many boaters bring stuff upon themselves. We were full time ccers in 92 and had no problems from anyone then or indeed before or since.

[ditchcrawler]

If any one is interested in the original topic the boat is floating again now

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

If any one is interested in the original topic the boat is floating again now

Are you sure someone has not just drained the pound ?